Judge narrows his Taunton casino ruling

Charles Winokoor Taunton Gazette Staff Reporter @cwinokoor

Thursday

Oct 13, 2016 at 6:53 PMOct 14, 2016 at 1:56 PM

TAUNTON — The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe says a decision Thursday by a federal judge, that at first glance would appear to run counter to the tribe’s quest for reservation land in Taunton and Mashpee, is actually a victory.

Construction of an East Taunton casino resort project — which the tribe has said represents an investment of $1 billion — has been on hold since a U.S. District Court judge this summer ruled in favor of a group of Taunton residents.

The plaintiffs in the case have challenged the Department of the Interior’s decision in 2015 placing 151 acres in Taunton and 170 acres in Mashpee “in trust” as sovereign-nation, reservation land.

Tribal Council Chairman Cedric Crowmwell, in a press statement Thursday, said the fact that Judge William Young has denied a motion by the Department of the Interior that he reconsider his July decision, calling into question the legitimacy of the government’s land-in-trust decision, should not be interpreted as a victory for the two-dozen plaintiffs.

“The United States has a full opportunity here to further address our request to have our land in trust, and we expect any setback caused by the court’s initial decision will be temporary,” said Crowmell, in a press release issued by Regan Communications.

Cromwell says the “legal path forward” afforded by Young’s ruling now makes it possible for the government to argue the legitimacy of its 2015 land-in-trust decision, based on a different category of legal criteria than previously cited by the Taunton plaintiffs.

Crowmwell says it’s now “clear” that the Department of Interior “is free and fully able to consider (the criteria) under the first part of the statute” dealing specifically with the government’s authority to take land in trust “for Indian tribes under ‘federal jurisdiction.’”

The term federal jurisdiction was employed in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and set a template for Indian tribes seeking reservation land.

Although the government didn’t recognize the Mashpee Wampanoag as a tribe until 2007, lawyers for the tribe have argued that the tribe in fact was under U.S. jurisdiction in 1934, despite its not having been “recognized” at the time.

Judge Young in July sided with the plaintiffs, who based their argument on a U.S. Supreme Court decision known as the Carcieri decision.

That 2009 case resulted in a ruling against the Narragansett Indian tribe that it was not entitled to land in trust in Rhode Island, to be used for senior housing, because it was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

The Mashpee Wampanoag, however, one day after Young ruled in favor of the Taunton plaintiffs, celebrated a federal court decision in favor of the Cowlitz tribe in Washington state upholding a lower court ruling that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 and thus entitled to reservation land.

Lead plaintiff Michelle Littlefield, who has vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, said Young’s decision Thursday is affirmation that she and her co-plaintiffs are secure in the knowledge that their argument will stand.

“This reaffirms what we’ve said all along,” Littlefield said.

Littlefield said she doesn’t expect the Interior Department is willing to rewrite its 2015 decision to fit the criteria of the category that dealt with the issue of federal jurisdiction.

“They (the DOI) avoided that first definition and knew damn well” that the tribe does not qualify for land in trust in Taunton, she said.

The tribe, which is backed financially by Genting Group of Malaysia, has said its First Light Resort and Casino will create thousands of jobs. The city of Taunton is also guaranteed at least $8 million per year.

If the tribe eventually were to lose its court case there still would be a license available from the state’s for Region C, which covers the southeastern section of Massachusetts.

The press release issued Thursday on behalf of the tribe refers to Littlefield and her co-plaintiffs as “a group of anti-Native American East Taunton residents.”

Littlefield has insisted that she has never objected to the idea of a casino and resort facility in East Taunton, and has always argued on the basis that the tribe is simply not entitled to land in trust.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.